Transterrestrial Musings

Comments

God has nothing to do with thought, plausability, actuality, proof or any other words like, as, or near that.

God is in the faith. You either have it or you don't. Faith that he exists regardless of the mechanations of men, or surgings of tectonic plates.

Even to the people of Asia, God, or Gods, may or may not exist right now. Some people will loose God because of their other losses, some will find him just the same way.

If you don't believe, God doesn't enter the equation. If you do believe, and depending on which religion you adhere to, God may have caused the quake. Then again to others He may have set the universe spinning and then let things take their course, knowing that some people would come to believe because of the quake and tsunami.

Faith comes in many shapes and sizes, to the faithful there is no other way to live. The faithless usually can't understand how the faithful can be so gullible. It's been that way for eons and that won't change until the sun goes dark. Natural and man made disasters just seem to bring out the differences in us, and cause the God or no God discussion.

Maybe thats why He allows tsunamis to happen.

Posted by Steve at January 1, 2005 12:21 PM

Rand,

I've been trying to parse your own attitude toward truth since I stumbled across your very interesting ID posts. I haven't been sure whether you consider truth, corrigible as it often is, contingent upon one's prefered worldview--and therefore entirely subjective--or if you believe truth really does hold despite one's prefered worldview, but that debating the issue with those who won't accept even the most basic tenets of science simply serves no purpose.

My own attitude is similar to Bertrand Russell's. Russell ended an essay concerning Logical Positivism this way:

"Some hold that truth does not consist in conformity with fact, but only in coherence with other proposistions already accepted for undefined reasons. Others, like Reichenbach, favour a posit which is a mere act of will and is admitted to be not intellectually justified. Yet others make attempts--to my mind futile--to dispense with general propositions. For my part I assume that science is broadly speaking true, and arrive at the necessary postulates by analysis. But against the thorough-going sceptic I can advance no argument except that I do not believe him to be sincere."

Since there are very few truly thorough-going sceptics, most of us must make one fallible leap of faith or another regarding reality. In that sense, you're certainly correct: even induction is "faith-based."

But do you really believe that there is no rational basis upon which to favor a materialist faith over a supernatural one? Or just that arguing the point is pointless?

Still curious...

Posted by dan at January 1, 2005 03:13 PM

Its genetic.

People who are oriented to religion are so because they have a gentic disposition for it, like John Derbyshire. Others, like myself, seem to lack the desire or propensity to believe in god or religion. Recently, the "god" gene has been identified that backs up this sentiment of mine, which I have held since high school.

Religion is like the arts and music. Some people can't live without it. Others have no need for it at all.

Posted by Kurt at January 1, 2005 03:43 PM

Sometimes even listening to people I agree with gets depressing. I know Dan didn't ask me, but here's my answer: The truth would be the truth even if no intellect existed to identify it as such (or misidentify it as falsehood). Or to put it another way, the proverbial falling tree makes a sound regardless of the presence or absence of an ear within range.

And since I have never even come within miles of understanding the need of some people to argue otherwise, I get tired easily of hearing the matter debated endlessly even by those who I think are on the right side of the question.

Or just that arguing the point is pointless?

That gets my vote.

Posted by McGehee at January 1, 2005 04:05 PM

"Recently, the "god" gene has been identified that backs up this sentiment of mine, which I have held since high school."

I wouldn't put a lot of 'faith' in this lone study.

Posted by Mike Puckett at January 1, 2005 04:43 PM

If there's a God, He loves killing everything he creates and has assured that that every work of man and nature will be returned to dust and diffuse radiation in the end. Not only will everything die but it will frequently happen in cruel and nasty ways, like the Jewish Holocaust.

Some promise of an afterlife might make us feel better, but as I have lost several good friends, I still have 30-40 more years of living without them, and their existence/nonexistence in some other plane of reality is not much consolation to me.

If this is a God that you are supposed to pray for things like, "Please don't let my family die in a car accident" then that is useless. If there is a God then it is up to us to buckle up our children, keep an eye on the horizon, stay alive as long as we can, and find something meaningful to do in the time we have.

Science gives us answers that predict nature and experiment, it can't provide much comfort when the prediction and occurence is that people die in random and terrible ways. For those of us that must deny wishful thinking and believe only what the cold equations tell us, there really there is not much you can do after a trajedy like this but help pick up the pieces and move on. And think about ways to avoid it in the future, like inventing some kind of tsunami warning system.

Would it be possible to make a GPS buoy or network of buoys that could sense rapid changes in sea level and warn of an approaching tidal wave? That is a question that would cause me more lost sleep.

Posted by Marcus van Bavel at January 1, 2005 10:30 PM

What if the question "does God exist?" weren't scientifically knowable? Say -- as suggested by Steven Brams' book on superior beings -- the whole question "is there an experiment that can confirm the existence of a Designer?" turns out to be a Gödel sentence, as unanswerable as the "liar's paradox" or "are these two programs equivalent?"

Posted by Charlie (Colorado) at January 1, 2005 11:30 PM

Mike Puckett,

I'm sure that the so-called "god" gene evidence is only the first of many such evidence that will be uncovered in the coming years.

You will also note that I did not intend any derogatory meaning in my comment. I was meerly pointing out the some people find religion indepensible and that others do not. Much like art and music.

Posted by Kurt at January 1, 2005 11:34 PM

"God has nothing to do with thought, plausability, actuality, proof or any other words like, as, or near that."

This is correct. The concept of god and religion can only be discussed within the context of psychology, which is partly influenced by genetics

Posted by Kurt at January 2, 2005 12:29 AM

I had a similar conversation with my wife and parents over lunch today regarding faith in God and why bad things such as the tsunami happen. For me, I'm very much an atheist in the sense that I simply lack "faith" that an all-knowing and all-powerful God exists. Of course, this is something that doesn't sit very well with my parents. I feel that my lack of faith is simply the way my brain is wired and part of the nature of my personality. Likewise, people who have faith in God are wired and think a bit differently than myself.

When expressing these views I have to be careful because I don't want to imply that one way of thinking is superior to the other. It has been my experience that there is little correlation between faith or lack of faith in God and the character of a person. Also, I feel that collectively we know so little about the true nature of the universe and why we exist that there is little difference between those of us with faith in God and those without.

Posted by Mike Thompson at January 2, 2005 01:55 AM

Freud's Future Of An Illusion still offers the best understanding of religious belief, as well as the psychological reasons why it persists, having its orgins in our infantile helplessness and need for protection.

Posted by Stephen at January 2, 2005 03:32 AM

"I'm sure that the so-called "god" gene evidence is only the first of many such evidence that will be uncovered in the coming years."

I am suspicious of the end objectives of some of these experimenters, I believe they have a larger agenda and science for science sake isn't it. My Occam alert is screaming full blast at this one.

Some would like to assign all responsibility to genes as a way of absolving behavioral failures.

Instead of the Devil made me do it, my genes did. Charlie Manson? Let him go, it was his genes. Child molesters? Let them go, it was genetics.

Don't be surpised if there is a study in the near future refuting this one.

Posted by Mike Puckett at January 2, 2005 09:49 AM

Some would like to assign all responsibility to genes as a way of absolving behavioral failures.

Instead of the Devil made me do it, my genes did. Charlie Manson? Let him go, it was his genes. Child molesters? Let them go, it was genetics.

This is a common argument against genetic determinism, and I find it very disingenious. Mike Puckett and many many others who bring it up are arguing whether the criminal has free will (they argue FOR it, of course), but their argument is based on the assumption that judges/juries/legislators HAVE free will. If you believe in genetic determinism, or try to disprove it by reductio ad absurdum, you must apply it consistently. If biochemistry of Timothy McVeigh's brain caused him to kill 168 people, then he had no choice in the matter -- but neither did the jury which condemned him to death, nor the executioner who admitted the lethal injection. Their actions were just as determined by their biochemistry.

The weird thing about genetic deteminism, if you really think it through, is that it does not require anyone -- neither saints nor mass murderers, neither bleeding-heart liberals nor "hang 'em" judges, -- to alter their behaviour. What they did was always predetermined. The awareness that it IS predetermined does not affect the equation.

Posted by Ilya at January 2, 2005 12:11 PM

Mike Thompson, I agree with you totally. My comments about it being genetic were also ment in a totally non-pajorative manner. For some reason, Mike Puckett keeps misinterpeing my comments to suggest a pajorative intent on my part. This simply is not the case.

Like art and music, some people are into religion and find it indepensible to their lives. Others do not. This suggests that there is a genetic component to it. Why anyone would have a problem with this argument is completely beyond me.

Also, why do religous people feel this compulsion to "convert" others? Why should they have any problem with me not wanting to have any part of their belief system? I don't try to "convert" people into the arts and music. Why should religous people try to "convert" me to their religon? This seems rediculous to me.

Posted by Kurt at January 2, 2005 01:34 PM

...why do religous people feel this compulsion to "convert" others? Why should they have any problem with me not wanting to have any part of their belief system?

Because successful religions (ones that gain adherents) will have the characteristic that they require their adherents to proselytize as part of the religion. Religions that don't do so are less likely to spread. It's a cultural evolutionarily successful aspect of the meme.

Posted by Rand Simberg at January 2, 2005 01:50 PM

I spent new years eve in the hospital. The doctor told me I had 5 yrs. to live. Perhaps 150,000 die in a tsunami. Someone today died of old age. How do any of these facts have any bearing on the question of whether or not God exists?

Being the creator he has every right to allow any or all of us to die. It's only a lack of humility that makes any of us think we have any rights... to demand that there should be is laughable.

Beyond that we have the hope of resurection to everlasting life. Again, something that only a lack of humility would lead any to believe is some kind of right. We are an ungrateful lot.

Posted by ken anthony at January 2, 2005 04:23 PM

Rand, I sometimes have trouble summing up my own position for other people (especially my many religious friends), but in the future I might just direct them to your post. It pretty much describes the way I feel also.

Posted by James at January 2, 2005 04:58 PM

The doctor told me I had 5 yrs. to live.

Ken, I sincerely hope that your doctor is mistaken. Many are.

I also hope (and believe that there's a good possibility) that your faith will sustain you and allow you to outlive him.

Be well.

Posted by Rand Simberg at January 2, 2005 06:41 PM

As a practical matter, of the problems I have in my life, having to deal with religious people trying to convert me wouldn't even make my top 1000 list :-). Maybe it's because I live in California where there is a more "live and let live attitude". I'm not sure. On the rare occasion it does happen I just smile politely and tell the person it's not for me. I have yet to have it go beyond that. Heck, answering the door for the occasional Jehovah's Witness doesn't even bother me anymore.

On the other hand, I have met a number of atheists who are pretty belligerent with their lack of faith. In my 20's I used to be like this myself. Actively seeking opportunities to engage a believer on the foolishness of their faith. Fortunately, I have since mellowed out with age. Unfortunately, I'm now sometimes made to feel as a traitor to fellow atheists because it doesn't bother me anymore that the President professing his deep faith in Jesus and daring to say "God" in a public forum.

My attitude now is to judge people by their actions rather than their motivations. Likewise, judge the "goodness" or "badness" of actions by results and consequences rather than intent. It's not always easy to do, but I think it allows me to better engage people who have a fundamentally different world view than myself.

To me, it's important that the world be a better place for all and not worry too much as to whether improvement was brought about by religious motivation or by scientific discovery. Just to stay on topic, I doubt victims of the tsunami care either.

Posted by Mike Thompson at January 3, 2005 12:35 AM

If one subscribes to genetic determinism (the "god gene" hypothesis for example), wouldn't one admit that belief in genetic determinism was itself genetically determined ( the "determinism gene" perhaps?). That is, if one believes that men lack free will, then that very belief was predetermined. Thus, one couldn't really believe in anything, because all beliefs are merely predetermined, including the belief that all beliefs are predetermined.

It's a belief system that is ultimately incoherent and self-contradictory.

As for the instrumental view of God (if He permits tsumamis, etc., then who needs Him?), it's been pointed out countless times that God is not our instrument, but rather the Creator. Some are more blunt: "God owes us nothing" [Phillip Lasch, for example]. C.S. Lewis wrote an entire book on this posture: "God in the Dock."

If Man is the measure of all things [the Enlightenment view], then God exists only to the extent that he promotes human happiness. The attempts to merge God and the Enlightenment gives us Spinoza and Hegel, for example, who attempted to merge God with reason [reason, of course, being the god of the Enlightenment].

As for reason, and faith in human reason, such is a useful, instrumental faith. Reason can be useful and effective. But it seems any reasonable person would admit that reason is limited. Again C.S. Lewis, "Man is bigger than science."

Kierkegaard regarded Hegel's deification of reason as essentially comic. In Kierkegaard's view, it is impossible to reach an absolute beginning, and there is no such thing as presuppositionless thought. The man who pretends that his view of life is determined by sheer reason is both tiresome and unperceptive; he fails to grasp the elementary fact that he is not a pure thinker, but an existing individual. There is no Archimedean point outside of existence by which to apprehend or evaluate existence (as hard as Descartes tried to find one).

It is just this awareness that has led to the crisis in epistemology over the last 100 years (a crisis the positivists like Russell couldn't solve).

Posted by MD at January 3, 2005 08:13 AM

MD,

Reason has its limitations. But God has its limitations, too.

Reason is a tool. It is a very powerful tool, and like all power tools, should be used with caution.

God, on the other hand, is a security blanket. It's a non-falsifiable fairy-tale with no explanatory value for our cosmos. It is also a superstitious threat used to trick people into buying into morality.

So I like reason, and I disdain the notion of God. The epistemological problems you have diagnosed don't bother me very much.

I respect the good things in religion, and some of my best friends are religious. But I respect the truth more than religion, and the truth is God doesn't exist.

The world, as Rand points out, is a beautiful place. Science is not as comforting in some ways as the idea of God, but life is worthwhile and meaningful even when we are on our own.

Posted by Matthew Goggins at January 3, 2005 09:55 AM

God does exist. God is not revealed to anyone unless one asks for the revelation. If you have no interest, that is okay. God exists whether you believe or not like the point made by McGehee above: "... The truth would be the truth even if no intellect existed to identify it as such (or misidentify it as falsehood). Or to put it another way, the proverbial falling tree makes a sound regardless of the presence or absence of an ear within range..." You do not have to belong to a religion to have a God experience. Loving truth, reason and science does not exclude one, either, from experiencing God. Ideas known and unknown can exist peacefully if all were to learn the attitude of Mike Thomas above; to allow religious-minded and atheists their own opinions on the matter without cringing or becoming unglued if you hear the words God or Faith. Matthew Groggins, take note. Showing disdain (you admit you feel it) by making a comment like: "...non-falsifiable fairy-tale with no explanatory value for our cosmos. It is also a superstitious threat used to trick people into buying into morality.." shows a lack of morality. Morals include thoughtfulness in expresssing your opinion without resorting to attacking another's beliefs. The specific attack words are : security blanket, non-falsifiable fairy-tale, superstitious threat, and trick. None of those word forward the discussion. It's too bad that mankind uses God to try to explain natural catastrophes or men like Charles Manson, when there is something more powerful and profound going on. But, once again, one doesn't gain knowledge of this without asking God.

Posted by R Foust at January 3, 2005 10:33 AM

Time to step in here. My first two degrees are in geology, and I am an evangelical Christian. Old-Earth Creationist to the extent that it matters, but I believe in full disclosure. We have also recently suffered a deep personal family, unrelated to the tsunami.

God has designed the Universe, and most particularly the world in certain ways for our overall benefit. Hurricanes, and the weather patterns that produce our Kansas tornadoes, are essential for mixing the warm and cold air regions on earth. These in turn support the ecosystem that supports our life here.

Continental drift is essential to the mixing of different geological layers, which in turn establishes the nature of the continents and the fertility of the soil. This matters to me because after geology I went on to become a soil chemist, agronomist, and now earn my living as a farmer, dependent on both soil and weather patterns.

God is all powerful. He /could/ stop the plates from moving, eliminating the earthquake. Eliminating the tsunami.

To do so, however, is utterly inconsistent with His eternal wisdom in establishing the physical world as it is. More importantly, it would ultimately destroy /all/ of us as the system upon which we totally depend breaks down in the absence of the mixing and renewal designed into it.

God knows there will be tragedy and loss. He has also told us how to respond and what we can learn from such things (see 2 Corinthians, chapter 1).

The ultimate tragedy is not that people die in tsunamis or tornadoes or truck crashes ... it is that so many people in their ignorance or their rebellion do not respond as the Creator of the Universe would have us do.

Posted by Bart Hall (Kansas, USA) at January 3, 2005 10:44 AM

R. Foust,

I am sorry that I have attacked your beliefs. I am sorry that I was not thoughtful enough in choosing my words.

My comments were really directed at MD, and I think my chosen words were appropriate for his consumption. But I could have anticipated that you and others with similar beliefs would read my words and take offense, so I offer my apology.

I disagree with you, though, when you say my words don't forward the discussion. My language was undiplomatic, but I raise valid points.

And disdain for the notion of God is not immoral. I would probably have disdain for atheism if I believed God existed. I should have re-phrased my remarks in a more sensitive manner, by you are actually attacking my beliefs by calling my disdain immoral.

Posted by Matthew Goggins at January 3, 2005 11:08 AM

Whether one feels one needs logic or not to obtain knowledge, of two contradictory propositions, one is correct and the other is not. Of course we can't always identify which is correct, but the believers of the incorrect propostion live by falsehoods, and their feelings are irrelevant to that fact.

Posted by Brett at January 3, 2005 11:16 AM

Thank-you Rand.

Posted by ken anthony at January 3, 2005 12:58 PM

First, faith is a decision I've made based on an "awareness" of the existence of God and my position relative to His. That He is Greater and I am lesser and I accept this position.

Second, God doesn't protect me from the consequences of life. He gives me the opportunity to participate in life -- the good and the bad. What His promise is to me is that I will not be alone in this journey.

Posted by bill at January 3, 2005 01:23 PM

I can't remember where I read this story relating to suffering, possibly in The Case for a Creator by Lee Strobel...

A man stumbles on a wild animal in the woods. The animal's leg is trapped beneath a rock, which the man cannot move. If the man leaves the animal, it will surely die. So the man proceeds to cut the animal's leg off with a small handsaw. The animal is weak, but cries in pain and agony while the man saws through its leg. The animal doesn't understand why the man is doing this, but in the end it is freed from the rock - it is saved! The animal lives, albeit with a newfound fear of man and a missing leg.

We all go through life wondering why horrific things happen to us, to people we love, and to "innocent" people all over the world. Pain and suffering lead many of us to fear the Lord, or perhaps to turn away from Him. We do not yet understand why we must endure this pain during our lives, but with Faith in Him we will know someday.

PRAY!!

Posted by Scott Arnold at January 3, 2005 02:27 PM

Having been both a non-believer in God, an agnostic, and a believer I cannot claim to understand God. I only understand the self-centered, selfish existence I live when I choose to ignore God. Or the selfish prayers I've made about things I wanted God to do for me. (Always the tail trying to wag the dog.) I've had my faith tested and failed. I've had my faith restored and see the joy within each day.

I understand those who deny God. I also believe that because God did create mankind with free will, it is purely understandable why God does not reveal himself to those who choose not to believe in him. Why go where you are uninvited? Those of us who know God also know that God suddenly showing up in our lives, uninvited would destroy the entire concept of free will.

Or, as I have heard it explained more simply, I know that some engineer designed the engine in my automobile, he/she just does not ride around inside hood. I won't see them when I lift the lid. But just because this engineer is not in my vehicle, does not mean he/she does not exist.

When you go look for God, you will find him and not because you create a mythical deity to believe in, but because God will show himself to you.

Just as God is appearing in the thousands/millions of people working to help the tsunami victims. Imagine, the opportunity for so many people to see the love of God reflected in the faces of others.

Posted by J Taylor at January 3, 2005 02:35 PM

Of all the comments here, J Taylor's makes the most sense to me. It's enough for me to believe that there is a higher power. This power set the conditions for our being and granted us free will, and thus nothing is preordained except physical death. I have no need for God to protect this one and ignore that one for me to believe in Her.

Neale Donald Walsh's book Conversations with God, convinced me that no matter what happens, it's all good. God experiences human life through us, which He could not do without us. There is no hell except that which we create for ourselves and heaven is to be found within. I am not religious in that I do not attend any particular church.

One cannot believe in Quantum Mechanics and the untold other mysteries of the universe without faith. One cannot believe in a supreme power without faith. Faith is the common ingredient.

Posted by Ed Poinsett at January 3, 2005 03:16 PM

Of myself, I am nothing. The Father doeth the works.

I believe my posting. Yet, when choosing my retirement abode, I rejected the seashore and choose a location 6 miles inland. Many hurricanes later, I have often thanked God for the decision. I expect the 6 miles to hold up for a small tsunami but who knows. We should exercise free will as best we can but often are ignorant or rebellious and simply choose wrong. Whenever we choose wrong, we risk suicide or worse.

Dynan

Posted by Dynan at January 3, 2005 03:28 PM

Short answer compressing lotsa philosophy:

1) God created everything perfect.
2) God created Man to worship Him.
3) God granted Man Free Will.
4) Man used Free Will to Sin.
5) By Sin, Death and Destruction entered God's heretofore perfect universe.
6) God cannot "fix" everything without revoking Man's Free Will to choose to believe, or not believe, in Him.
7) Suffering is Man's fault, not God's.

So, did God cause the suffering of the Tsunami? No, God allowed it - Man caused it.

Posted by D Carraher at January 3, 2005 04:37 PM

Reading atheists' pontifications on God always reminds me of that classic "Jesus People" bumper sticker of the 60s/70s;

"If God is dead He died laughing."

Posted by H Hamilton at January 3, 2005 05:06 PM

I respectfully suggest to all the theists who have been commenting that there are other explanations for your religious experiences besides divine will or presence.

It may seem churlish to point this out, and I have already been reprimanded for being insensitive above. But I feel that just as it valuable for the religious folk on this thread to bear witness to their spiritual states and journeys, it is no less so the case for myself and my beliefs.

Does God exist? As far as I can tell, the answer is an overwhelming no.

How to account for the strength and courage that many persons find in God? I suggest they are actually finding a source of strength in themselves, or perhaps in their friends, family, or religious community.

How to account for the mystical moments, or even the on-going mystical relationships, that many people experience? I would suggest they are actually going through a special psychological process that appears to involve God but in reality has nothing to do with God other than as an imaginative figure.

I do not pretend to know where the world comes from, or why it is here. But no one knows where God comes from, either, or why God exists.

I really would not bother upsetting all the worthy people who might read this and might feel as if I challenging them to no good end.

But I am convinced that I should bear witness to the reality that I experience, and to reality as I understand it, because I feel people should have a chance to appreciate that there is life without God, or without belief in God, and it is not the end of the world.

To the contrary, I feel it is hard in many ways to deal with the world unless one is open to challenging one's assumptions about reality that do not correspond to reality.

Posted by Matthew Goggins at January 3, 2005 05:40 PM

reason is a tool. Nothing less and nothing more. I like tools. Tools enable me to do the things that I want to do and to live the life I want to live.

Religion, on the other hand, is not really a tool in the same sense that reason is. As I mentioned previously, some people cannot live without religion in the same way that some people cannot live without music or the arts. Others have no need of it at all.

I am in the second category. I have no need of nor have any interest in "god" and religion, whatsoever.

In no way do I mean this pajoratively. I do not consider myself to be "superior" to any christian. muslim, Sihk, or whatever other kind of people I may encounter. Only different.

I have live in both the U.S. and several Asian countries. I have had the pleasure of interacting with people of almost every religion on the planet. I have always considered them my equals. Presummably, they have considered me their equal.

Someone here said that god owes us nothing. I can recipricate and say that I owe god nothing. Interpersonal relationships are a two-way street. You treat me well and I will return the favor. You treat me badly or ignore me, I will simply go my own way and have nothing to do with you.

I treat all others as my equals. I have no use for relationships based on "greater" and "lesser". I refuse to be a "lesser" to anyone, nor do I expect anyone to be a "lesser" to me.

For those of you who believe in religion, that is fine. I'm sure that you have your reasons for believing in such a thing and I have no desire to change you. I am not in the "change" business. Please realize: I have no interest in religion and god. These things simply are not applicable to me. Accept this fact. Accept the fact that I exist completely independent of your god and religion and owe them nothing. Why is this so difficult for you to accept? Your religion is yours alone. It is not mine.

FYI, I basically do believe in the Enlightment world-view that man is the measure of all things.

Posted by Kurt at January 4, 2005 10:59 AM

I noticed that some people here seemed to take offence with my notion that predisposition to religious belief is a genetic trait. Perhaps this is because you think that I am being pajorative in this. I assure you that this is not the case.

Some people are Asian, others caucasion. Some people have blond hair, other have dark hair. These are all genetic traits. Yet, none of this (today, in modern society) is treated in a pajorative sense. Why not predisposition to religious belief?

There are only two possible reasons for the reluctance to consider a genetic hypothosis:

1) That people who believe in religion do, indeed, believe that this knowledge will somehow be used "against" them. Given the fact that "most" people, at least in the western/middle-eastern world, do believe in some sort of religion suggests that this fear should be groundless.

2) The notion that religious belief is genetic make religion "their thing" and not "our thing". That is, religion only applies to people who believe in it and not to anyone who does not. In which case, it is clearly the religious people who are being pajorative.

What is wrong with the notion that religion is "your thing" and not "my thing"? I have no problem with this and noone should either.

In discussing the possibility that a predisposition to religious belief is a genetic trait, I think that the religious believers themselves need to examine their own motives with regards to this issue.

Posted by Kurt at January 4, 2005 11:29 AM

Kurt,

I like this sentiment:

I have no use for relationships based on "greater" and "lesser". I refuse to be a "lesser" to anyone, nor do I expect anyone to be a "lesser" to me.

In practice, we have to deal with greaters and lessers all the time, whenever we deal with an authority or act as an authority.

But the authority should flow from the demands of a particular situation, such as a judge hearing a case, or a teacher leading a class. The authority should not come from some arbitrary kind of caste distinction. And there should always be an acknowledgement of the equal worth of the individual, regardless of any disparity in authority.

About genetics and religion, I would hesitate to reach your conclusions, although I cannot prove that they are false.

Hair and eye color, and many other physical characteristics, are largely determined by genes. This is well established.

But no one knows to what extent personalities are determined by genes ("nature") as opposed to by their environment and other developmental factors ("nurture"). Some interesting studies have been done with identical twins, but human nature is so complicated that it is not apparent that scientists will ever be able to point to a gene and say, "This gene expresses itself as a need for religious belief."

Moreover, I would definitely avoid making sweeping generalizations about religious believers. There are some four or five billion religious believers out there, and they are as varied a bunch of people as possibly could be.

Posted by at January 4, 2005 05:02 PM

There are some four or five billion religious believers out there, and they are as varied a bunch of people as possibly could be.

This is certainly true and they have a wide variety of belief systems. There is a irritating tendency on the part of abrahamic religious people
to view the abrahamic religious as being more "religious" than the non-abrahamic ones, which is simply rediculous. No doubt the beliefs of buddhism can be a strongly felt as the beliefs of christianity or islam.

Buddhism is every bit as much of a religion as christianity. Personally, I prefer Buddhists to christians. I find them less irritating.

The reason why I think propensity for religious belief is genetic is based on empirical observation and a hunch.

I have encountered many people who are as passionate about religion as, say, a patron of the arts is about the arts. I have also known many people who simply do not "connect" with religion at all. I just happen to be one of the latter. The fact is that some people really do have a need for religion in their lives that that other clearly have no need for religion in their lives. Since any particular religious world-view cannot be accertained through reason alone, there is no objective basis for saying that one particular religion is more "correct" than any other. Moreover, there is no objective basis for saying that any of them are correct at all.

This coupled with the wide variety of attitudes and needs for religion among various people, makes it very clear that religious belief is based on psychology. Can anyone realy dispute that?

Since psychology is the basis of all human behaviors and beliefs, then it is a matter of determining what is the basis of psychology. What is also clear is that psychology is PARTLY determined (not entirely) by genetics. The rest of it being based on "nuture". The implication of this is that propensity for religious belief is PARTY determined by genetics. This should be non-controversial.

Since religious world-views are purely subjective (i.e. cannot be determined through reason and scientific inquiry alone), religion can only be discussed, in a practical manner, on the basis of psychology, evolutionary psychology, and memetics. This should be obvious as well.

Posted by Kurt at January 5, 2005 02:21 PM

As one who's passed from atheism to agnosticism to ethical Buddhism, I am amazed to find that science provides compelling evidence for an inherently intelligent universe. But if there's anything divine in it, it sure doesn't conform to any preconception we may hold.

Posted by moge at January 5, 2005 07:38 PM

It's exciting to me to see such a thoughtful, respectful dialog on the difficult topic of whether God exists.

I agree with Matthew G's point that the experience that seems like God could be explained in other ways. I just finished reading a book that has some relevant things to say about this point.

It's called The Midnight Disease, and explores a wide range of issues related to creativity, including writer's block and its opposite (the uncontrollable urge to write, called hypergraphia -- this is "the midnight disease"). The author is both a neurologist and someone who has experienced hypergraphia as part of a mood disorder, so she really knows what she is talking about. It's also brand new, so it has a lot of recent information about how the brain works.

Basically what they are finding is that the temporal lobes and the limbic system are much more involved in creativity than has been previously recognized. These same regions of the brain appear to be the seat of religious experiences. (This is of course an extreme oversimplification, and I urge those who are interested in this to read the book.)

The author doesn't say that this finding about brain states means there is no God, and indeed she cites some religious writers who have commented on this very research (arguing, as I recall, that knowing how we experience God is interesting but not relevant to the existence of same).

I found this book really, really interesting, partly because I am a writer and also because I am essentially an atheist but have recently undergone what could be called a spiritual awakening, although I would be just as happy to call it an epiphany or emotional change. My shorthand for what I believe now is that God is Love. Another way to put it is to say that I now consider God a useful metaphor rather than simply a foolish notion.

I think the human mind has a need for metaphor, and it seems likely, as someone mentioned in this dialog, that some of us need it more than others, just as some of us need music more than others do.

While I am happy to have a new understanding of how religious experience can be useful (I would say "security blanket" is certainly a harsh way of putting it, but not all that far off the mark, really, speaking for myself here -- this metaphor gives me comfort), I do think it is very important to fight against the evil that is done in the name of religion. It upsets me greatly to hear President Bush emphasizing that Islam is "a great religion" when so much evil is being perpetuated daily by Islamicists and we hardly ever hear Islamic believers object to that.

Final comment: I just want to emphasize how heartening it is to read this dialog (I started reading y'all yesterday with the ID thread). If people can get better at speaking of difficult issues in a way that allows those who differ to understand each other, that could make a huge difference in our ability to make the world a better place.

Posted by sarah at January 6, 2005 01:49 PM

The comment from 1/4/05, at 5:02 pm, which talked about a bit about "greaters" and "lessers", was from me. I left out my name, I don't know why.

Sarah, thank you for bridging the atheists and the non-atheists with your "God is Love" metaphor. I'll consider joining your religion.

I, too, wish Muslims were a lot more active and vocal in fighting Islamist fascists and terrorists.

In their defense, though, I never considered the Soviet Union as something atheists had a special duty to denounce because it was an atheist regime. I don't think it would ever occur to Baptists or Methodists to denounce the Pope if the Pope were to do something really stupid. And it would be just as strange for a Catholic to feel defensive about the shenanigans of a hustling fundamentalist tele-evangelist.

It takes a lot of energy to build and maintain a community, so its all too easy to ignore those who act in your religion's name, and to not bother disowning them in a dramatic fashion.

Thanks again for your smart and gracious post. I think a lot of the credit for the dialogue on this thread goes to Mr. Simberg, for modelling thoughtful and respectful discourse. Thanks Rand!

Posted by Matthew Goggins at January 11, 2005 11:04 AM

Post a comment